EclecticIdealist

Yeah, the whole way it was presented was, IMO, a bit too unbelievable, too compressed in time. I thought Anakin should have demonstrated natural affinity for the Dark side that Obi Wan should have been trying to persuade him not to use and Palpatine should have been telling him that the Jedi were simply jealous of how powerful he was becoming, etc. I thought Anakin's concern for his mother and the fate of all slaves on Tatooine should have been a plot point in the 2nd movie, and him wanting the Jedi to intervene and being told it's not the Jedi's place to intervene outside of the worlds controlled directly by the Republic and having Palpatine talk about how he would end slavery throughout the galaxy if he had the power to do so, but the Galactic Senate just gets in the way. It would cause more enmity between Anakin and the Jedi Council in a more believable way, making his changing sides more plausible. Anakin should have been led to see the Jedi and the Senate as barriers to his desires to bring liberty and peace to the galaxy... Anakin needs to plausibly see himself as the Hero for it to really work.

Anakin: "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." Jesus: "He that is not with me is against me." Obi Wan: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Anakin and Jesus were taking an absolutist view to behavior, not making absolute claims. Obi Wan was replying about the absolutist view of behavior. Obi Wan was actually hypocritical in that the very concepts of good and evil and calling Palpatine Evil is are absolutes. That would make Obi Wan a de facto Sith by his own standard of behavior.

Many would argue they already have lost the consent of some of the governed, and most if not all of the governed with respect to some policies. Are things better as a result of the non-participation with the processes of the State in these regards? What do you imagine the path from statism to be, or do you consider this a possibility for the whole of society at all?

I have familiarized myself with and understand the difference between internal and external mediation (bad terminology on Girard's part, in my opinion). You say you love Mozart, but is it Mozart you love or the music he wrote? Would you love to write music as well as he did to the point that you're actually attempting to do so? If not, then I question the validity of the assertion that Mozart is providing a mimetic model for you. The point is, a mimetic model is directing your actions whether to imitate or exceed, or to the exact opposite (as some are wont to do in the case of parenting they are seeking to rebel from). It's not unlike the non-conformist who dresses exactly the opposite of societal dictates, just like everyone else who is "non-conforming". The desire for a particular kind of food can be mimetic, and may be early on; however, as a person individuates from their parents and siblings, their food choices will be less mimetic and more in line with the physical senations and subconscious nutritional prompting, and largely the content of pleasure inducing substances (such as carbs, salt and fat triggered by the body's evolutionary process of identifying calorie rich foods and rewarding their acquisition and intake). Yes, some are particularly susceptible and subject to mimetic modeling for food that is advertised to them (especially young children), and some are particularly resistant to imitation (still subject to mimetic modeling, but in a contrarian way). My point is, not all behavior, not even a majority necessarily (though it may be a majority for some) is mimetic in origin as Girard suggests. I am referring to misperceived non-aggression... such as when a driver reaches for their wallet and a police officer misperceives the action as reaching for a weapon. I am referring to a child playing with a toy in a manner to recreate a scene viewed from a TV program while taking care not to damage the toy and a parent misperceives the action as an intent to destroy a sibling's toy. I am talking about recreational hikers who accidentally (or intentionally, but without malice) cross an international border and are perceived by the local military to be Western spies. I am talking about someone who makes an inept and innocent attempt at humor and it is interpreted as an insult. In short, any time one person's actions are mistakenly perceived to be aggressive when such intent (whether conscious or unconscious) never existed.

While I am firmly anti-descrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, age, etc., I am also opposed to the "public accommodation" section of the Civil RIghts Act applying to privately owned property or businesses not receiving subsidies, benefits, or any other privileged status from any government agency. I believe any individual representing themselves or a privately owned company has the right to discriminate against another for any reason, even though I would likely find such discrimination abhorrent. Government agencies, or those receiving subsidies, benefits or special privileges (at the expense of the general public) ought to be held to a higher standard and required not to discriminate against those who are compelled to support them through taxation. Obviously, in a stateless society, such would be a non-issue, as there wouldn't be any tax dollars or government agencies, etc. In short, I believe if you want to be a hypocritical Christian and not do unto others as you'd have others do unto you, and not Love thy neighbor as thyself, you should be able to go ahead and discriminate against gays by not baking them a wedding cake. You should also be subject to ridicule for your hypocrisy, but no one should be subject to violence or threats of violence simply for being self-righteous pricks (whether straight Christians or gay atheists, or whatever you might happen to be).

Obviously we can't know precisely what she might have been thinking along this line, but I would speculate that when she states "Existence exists", she is really stating "Something (as contrasted by Nothing) Exists. That we think, indicates at the very least, that that which thinks exists. While we cannot know with absolute certainty WHAT that which thinks is, we can know with absolute certainty that SOMETHING which thinks exists... this "SOMETHING" we may loosely categorize as KNOWN existence. Everything we might conceptualize as a result of what we believe to be the perception of our senses is presumed to exist (and not simply a delusion of the mind) and is also categorized as existence. The term "existence" in the statement "Existence exists" might also be termed "the Universe" provided one does not presume anything about the meaning of the term such as space, stars, planets, etc. I believe you're correct, especially with regard to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The probability equations are perceived by some to be almost like magical incantations rather than mere probability descriptions of observed or predicted physical phenomena.

A marriage vow (or oath) is not a contract. Blood tests are to help provide informed consent - they help reveal potential issues which might occur with childbirth and incompatible blood types that might otherwise be avoided (i.e. mother developing antigens for the father's Rh factor causing issues for maintaining a pregnancy), licenses because the state mandates them in order to afford certain legal privileges such as immunity from prosecution for failure to testify against one's spouse, presumed ability to speak for the other in the event of their incapacity, automatic rights of survivorship including full control over jointly held property if not otherwise contested, etc. Extravagant parties should go without saying... As to coming away unaware of the contractual nature of marriage, I never said this or intended to imply it; I meant only to convey that the contractual (legal) aspect of the partnership is not in the forefront of anyone's mind in most cases unless or until one must take the aforementioned decisions of dividing property, etc.

I find it funny that Kenobi missed the irony in making such a claim, as did Lucas, since a similar saying is attributed to Jesus (Matt 12:30 - "He that is not with me is against me") Does that make Jesus a Sith Lord?

I certainly don't expect to find many who agree with me on this point. Does it? I can see how someone escalating violence themselves would require escalation, but you're going to have to make a case why failure to comply requires an escalation on the part of the police. That sounds like the same justification parents use for spanking their children. Are you also excusing parents spanking their non-compliant children? A person's criminal history, especially if they're a minority, may not be reflective of their criminality, especially if the history is for a long litany of minor, non-violent statutory or regulatory offenses or crimes which are so often used in order to defame the victim and exonerate the officer's behavior. Maybe. But more often, it seems he is less interested in helping us understand what might have happened and more interested in justifying the anti-victim narrative of what happened. If he were truly interested in helping us understand what might have happened, we would see more information about the police officers involved, all the negatives in the officers' lives going back ten or more years to their childhood and what experiences or traumas might have influenced their decision to become cops and how that might have informed their actions. But I've yet to see him do that to the same degree he does the victims of police escalated violence. I agree it's anecdotal, and I also don't disagree at all with those who are critical of how many Black people have been shown on video to behave resulting in an escalation of police use of force (justified in my opinion in most of those cases, incidentally). As stated previously, there are prudent ways to behave around armed gang members dressed in blue, some of which (and you'll rarely know who they are beforehand) who have a penchant for violence and a wanton disregard for anyone else's life but their own. Just as a girl who acts slutty and gets drunk at a frat party is engaging in behavior that raises her chances of getting raped, even though such behavior certainly wouldn't ever justify it; people, including a disproportionately large number of young black and hispanic men, engage in similarly dangerous and foolish behavior that is likely to result in police behaving in a manner the police never should and doing things to them, whether or not they are guilty of the crimes suspected of them, that cannot rationally be justified. To be clear, I'm not condemning cops defending themselves with lethal force when it becomes necessary or prudent to do so. I'm only condemning their propensity for escalating the violence of a situation and having a tendency to act in a biased manner that makes it more dangerous to be a minority, especially a Black man, than any other race, when all other factors (the age, appearance, mannerisms, drsss, etc.) are equal.

<Ch-tongue-eek> You're obviously a terrorist sympathizer or criminal as there's no legitimate reason for anyone to encrypt anything sent over a phone in a manner to make it untraceable. </Ch-tongue-eek>

My apologies for being so imprecise. What I meant to convey is that most people do not consider the contractual partnership nature of marriage until it comes to an end, either through the death of one or both parties, or through divorce. Only when terminating such a partnership (or the possibility exists and one must speak on behalf of the other to convey their wishes, such as making medical, financial, or legal decisions) does the contractual partnership nature of the relationship ever really come up. Instead, they see it typically as intimate companionship and cohabitation. I tend to agree that how it has changed as a result of anti-miscegenist statists has not been an improvement. Agreed Again, agreed about everything except the part about the horse. The horse is incapable of giving informed consent to the union. Without informed consent, it's only one-sided, not marriage.

It seems you're not understanding I am attempting to make a distinction between when something begins and what the origins of something are. For example, the origins of the initiation of physical violence aren't punching and kicking. The origins are feelings of wanting what another has or mis-perceiving a non-existent aggression or threat of violence. Physical violence begins when the punch is thrown or the leg is kicked, or whatever other physical action takes place which acts upon the desire. That makes no sense at all. What one person does (or even does not do) might be misperceived by another as aggression. It is the misperception of non-existent aggression or coveting what another has which leads to aggression. You (and Girard) are wrong about that. There are many such desires that are not mimetic in origin. Supposing that all desire is mimetic in origin is just as much an error as supposing that no desires are mimetic in origin. If something I see, hear, smell, taste or feel brings me pleasure, it is not because I see, hear, smell, taste, or feel someone else enjoying it. Once I experience the pleasure, I will want to experience it again... such is the nature of the experience of pleasure. I will naturally desire that which I find brings me pleasure, regardless of whether anyone else appears to desire it or enjoy it. This is not to suggest that imitation isn't a very powerful, or even a dominant influence on our desires. It's simply not the only one, and it may not be the dominant influence for all. Furthermore, recognition of and rejection of the imitation of desires of others short-circuits the tendency toward covetous and allows other, internally sourced mechanisms to play a greater role in one's desires... (I enjoy _____ music because it appeals to me, not because it appeals to those who are powerful or influential, or wealthy, or whomever I might admire for their abilities or accomplishments. I desire _______ sort of house because of how I feel in such a place. I enjoy ______ food because it appeals to my particular tastes, not because such an such a person say I ought to. I enjoy doing and desire to do _______ not because ______ does it, but because I enjoy how it feels to do it and the results of having done it. etc. ) Such desires do not generally originate conflict because there is no rivalry or competition.

Gotcha, because "efficiency" in this case is defined as the generation of heat in relation to the energy put into the system rather than "loss of energy to entropy" which is typically in the form of energy lost from the system through heat transfer to the environment.

Would that be similar to a Stirling Engine? These still require an energy source.

Initiation of force does not start with a glance, although it may have its origins there. Aggression may start with a glance that is misperceived, or with the sin of coveting which is what Girard's memetic theory is really all about. The solution is to recognize the seeds of aggression (coveting) and to circumvent it by adopting a different perspective and mindset. Eliminate the coveting and you eliminate the seeds of aggression. This can be accomplished either with the realization that one only wants it because the other has it and that the desire for it is not internally sourced but externally sourced; or alternatively to recognize that what one actually wants (the satisfaction of one's needs and desires can better be accomplished through cooperation rather than competition, a positive sum, value adding, abundance view of economics rather than the zero sum or negative sum, scarcity view of economics. In short, the solution is to recognize the error of informing one's desires through memesis and looking inward instead of outward for one's desires.

I would say that general skepticism is a large-scale gullibility defense, but also that this trait must be "fine tuned" and is still "evolving".

Again, unsupported assertions are gratuitous, not arguments, and are dismissed as being without warrant. If you believe my first point to be logically incoherent and you wish your assertion to be regarded seriously, you must demonstrate how it is incoherent. I admit I may not have stated it as clearly as other things I have stated, but I believe the point I made still stands unless you can show why it does not. I agree. The point I ineptly endeavored to make is that most do not view marriage as a contractual partnership until it comes time to dissolve it. Instead, they view it as a socially sanctioned cohabitation and typically sexual relationship between two (or more) adults. Which demonstrates the falsity, if not abject hypocrisy of such societies claims of being fair and just. Again, the whole point of registration in a truly free society would be nothing more than to establish the existence of such a relationship in order to clarify any claims of authority or ownership when one or both parties are incapable of doing so themselves. Medical directives, settlement of an estate's property, etc. are all aided by such a registration and is NOT the same thing as license and has nothing to do with metaphorically "paying protection money to the mafia".

Gullibility itself is not painful. The results which often come from gullibility can be. And actually, the brain did in a sense evolve for truth. Accuracy in conception (correct thinking) is an advantageous trait enabling one to pass on one's genetic information.

Standing by your statement is not an argument. If you are merely asserting that absolute autonomy doesn't exist for anyone living under any current governmental system, then you'll find no disagreement from me with such a claim. If you're asserting something else, please elucidate further. I agree that many who are the initial aggressors will claim to be the victim of aggression, and in some cases, some will claim to be victims of aggression that is merely perceived, not actual. Nevertheless, in most instances of conflict, there is an escalation to the threat of violence, or actual violence. In such cases, there is usually a clear initiator to impartial witnesses. I will concede that impartial witnesses do not always exist. Non-violent aggression is the threat of violence, not actual violence. It's a legitimate distinction. To suggest neither side will ever admit to such behavior is speaking only to your own experience. I happen to know otherwise having alternatively admitted to being the instigator of aggression as well as the recipient of such instigation admitted by another.

Governments do not and cannot issue inalienable human rights. The only rights they can issue are those which derive directly from the existence of government itself, such as the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, the right to an attorney to mount a proper defense against accusations of criminal activity, the right to vote for one's representatives in government, etc. Only if there is no public domain. Not just lefist tactics. The political right is also guilty of quashing free speech and expression it considers "morally offensive" such as pornography, and things which are deemed anti-(dominant religion of the society). This is not necessarily the case. The Internet itself is a good example of how this is not the case. Certain forums are very restrictive; whereas, other forums are very libertine. I agree in principle, but the specifics seem like they need a little work. I also maintain that there will be those who are philosophically and ideologically mature enough to provide such a forum without the necessity of a formal government intervention. Again, I refer you to the internet where exist many sites including sites like this which are largely anarchic and facilitate the respectful exchange of ideas (with the exception of those who might abuse a poorly thought out and executed reputation system in an attempt to stifle ideas or individuals they dislike).

I'm not sure what alleged examples of "free energy" you might be referring to in this case. There are some who have alleged the ability to extract energy from the magnetic field generated by the earth or directly from permanent magnets using specially wound electro magnets used in conjunction with them. There are others who have alleged the ability to extract energy from cosmic rays coming from the Cosmos/Universe using specially designed RF receivers. There are others who have alleged the ability to extract energy from the atmosphere. There are others who have alleged the ability to extract energy from the zero-point vacuum fluctuations theorized to exist by quantum mechanics. There are others who have alleged the ability to extract energy from what they term "Cold Fusion" i.e, Atomic Fusion which is the accomplished through the use of electricity and a Catalyst (e.g. Paladium) which drastically reduces the amount of energy to bring the atoms together and consequently drastically reduces the amount of energy released as well. One living within range of a high power radio broadcast tower may, with the right circuitry, extract enough energy from the signal to drive a small piezo electric speaker. Nikola Tesla demonstrated a means of extracting electricity from the electrical differential between the earth (negatively charged) and the atmosphere at elevation (positively charged). Numerous experimenters have used/followed his patents to successfully reproduce his claims (admittedly the amount of electricity they succeeded in producing is of nominal potential and utility), solar panels delivering a far greater voltage and current. I suppose you are referring to so called "over-unity devices" which are alleged to produce more electrical output than is required to drive them. These are typically alleged to derive their power from some mysterious, unknown energy or the ether or some other such power source lacking a conventional and empirically demonstrable existence.

You have a strange notion about autonomy. Autonomy is not about isolation, it is about self-direction, self-government, self-rule. It is liberty as opposed to artificial (i.e. man-made/man-caused/man-directed) constraint, i.e. tyranny and slavery. Violence and aggression are neither fuzzy nor indistinct unless one is intentionally making them so. You desire to know the beginning of physical violence? It is when force is utilized to impose one's will upon another. The beginning of violence is not the same thing as the origin or cause of violence, but that's not what you asked. You ask if "siege tactics" could constitute physical violence? Possibly. An act of aggression? Without question. Are you utilizing the threat of force or violence to confine a person to a small geographical space, or to limit their ability to trade freely with others, or to gather freely available resources from their environment? If you are, it is an act of aggression. If you actually implement the threatened force, that would constitute violence. If you are simply telling people they must not do something without any threat of consequences, and without enacting any consequences, that's not a siege and it's not the imposition of one's will upon another, through violence or even the threat of violence, and therefore, it is not a violation of the non-aggression principle. It's an expression of one's desires perhaps, but nothing more. Would anyone consider it moral to engage in non-violent aggression against another in order to provoke another (to do what)? I'm sure there are some who would, and others who would not. I certainly would not. Threats of violence are acts of aggression and violate the NAP. I honestly cannot understand what you find so difficult about the NAP.

Generally, though not always, society only becomes involved in the contractual portion of the relationship when it is dissolved; and for clarity sake, it's more properly regarded as a contractual partnership in most instances. Certain societies do not recognize marriage as a voluntary association on both parties, but only on the party of the husband. The wife is his property, his chattel, whether she chooses to be or not. Furthermore, some societies do not recognize certain associations as marriage (e.g., gay marriage, polygamous marriage, group marriage, consanguineous marriage, etc.). In these cases, when there is a dissolution of the relationship either by death, the distribution of property is called into question by surviving heirs in a manner that would not occur if the marriage were societally recognized. In the case of voluntary separation, the division of assets may be challenged by the person in whose name the assets were purchased or registered with any governmental agencies Probably. What I'm suggesting is that a society that claims to be fair and just must equally recognize as legitimate all voluntary partnerships (i.e., gay marriage, polygamous marriage, cousin marriage, etc.). As to licensing, I believe licensing is nothing more than the management of privilege and has no business in a fair and just society. Marriages and such may be registered, and a nominal fee charged for maintaining such a registry... but even such need not be handled by any government institution.

In short, I'm not suggesting that the cop who shot Philandro Castile wasn't justified. We simply don't know and likely will never know with any reasonable degree of certainty; but it is PROBABLE that the cop WAS justified if he was unable to see where and to what he was reaching, knowing that Philandro Castile had a weapon in the car, despite claiming to have a concealed carry permit for it. The cop would be justified regardless of the race of the person, how they were dressed, how wealthy they appeared to be, or even how friendly they happened to be.

Marriage, fundamentally, is a voluntary association between two (or more) individuals, and is typically considered a contact recognized by society if or when such a voluntary association is dissolved. Most societies will not recognize certain voluntary associations as marriage and thus protect the interests of such parties when such an association is dissolved or decisions must be made on the basis of such an association (such as medical decisions, custody of children, inheritance, etc.). The freedom of association is a natural right. The societal recognition of such an association is, at best, a civil right. No society purporting to be fair and just can recognize the freedom of association of one couple or group in a voluntary association of consenting adults that considers their relationship to be a marriage and not recognize the voluntary association of consenting adults of another that considers their relationship to be a marriage.